From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <44CA26E6.3060602@lanl.gov> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:01:58 -0600 From: Ronald G Minnich User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] mount 9P on Linux and FreeBSD via FUSE References: <3e1162e60607272338l11f4833ekbdb49b53e7d382cc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60607272338l11f4833ekbdb49b53e7d382cc@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 92057adc-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 David Leimbach wrote: > Yeah but it did allow that, it would currently allow users to bind > their own passwd file or sudoers etc etc over /etc (unless they had an > implementation that prevented such things). right, so in my v9fs on Linux 2.0, I made the 9p lack-of-attributes such as dev inode, suid, ec. out as a virtue. You could not express most of the ideas that were security issues in Unix. If you add a few restrictions on where user mounts are allowed to go (e.g. you're only allowed to mount on /private, for example), I think you can knock a lot of the harder problems. It's all a hack, I guess, but there's only so much you can do on Unix. I still think you can do user mounts and still be safe. ron